|
|
Posted by PTravel on 10/26/07 05:34
Okay, I just ordered an HV20 from B&H. Don't tell my wife! ;)
"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:np1Ui.2762$qo2.873@trndny06...
> Arny,
>
> I am totally unfamiliar with the "green square in the upper right corner"
> issue you refer to, and suggest you post this question on the most active
> HV20 forum I know of, at:
>
> http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=139
>
> I find it really hard to believe that this is a design flaw in the camera,
> and assume it is more likely a defect in your specific camera and would be
> repaired under warranty.
>
> As regards latency, I am again at a bit of loss to understand your
> comment. Since you are apparently not recording the camera output, but
> merely using the HV20 as a video camera, you may be seeing a delay in the
> HDMI or Firewire output due to the time it takes for the camera to encode
> the video / audio, and then the additional time it takes for your monitor
> to decode them. Having not used the HV20 as a live camera, I cannot
> confirm that this indeed does happen with the HV20, but it would not
> surprise me at all. In this regard, I imagine that both Firewire and HDMI
> output from any of the HD (and SD) cameras will exhibit this to a lesser
> or greater extent. If the lag time between the live scene and the monitor
> display is objectionable, you could see if the connection you are is using
> analog or digital, and if digital, whether you are using Firewire or HDMI,
> both of which the camera provides. It would very likely improve the
> latency if you switched from Firewire to HDMI, and further improve it if
> you switched from either of these to analog (component) output. This is a
> rather simple experiment to conduct, and assumes your monitor supports the
> different input modes. Component output should exhibit the least lag, but
> this may still be objectionable.
>
> I have not tried the tele adapter, but frankly think that 10X optical zoom
> and the 200X effective digital zoom, is difficult enough to control /
> stabilize, even with a tripod. High def demands a nice, stable image, and
> my own experience with the 10X optical combined with the effective 200X
> digital zoom makes the need for an extra tele lens very unlikely. As an
> experiment, I would suggest engaging the digital zoom and watching how
> well this "tele adapter" really works in the situation you describe. If
> the view of the now enlarged pulpit at 120 feet away is stable with the
> various movement you have in the room (footsteps, tripod shake, pulpit and
> people movement, etc.), then an add-on optical tele extender may be the
> answer. The digital zoom sacrifices detail / resolution and I am not
> suggesting it as a the 'final' solution, but rather as a way to anticipate
> how much jitter / shake / movement the scene is likely to undergo before
> investing in the optical tele lens accessory.
>
> Hope these provide some useful help to you.
>
> Smarty
>
>
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:9N2dnS2TI-1F4L3anZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
>> news:2cwTi.27883$DX.13741@trnddc06...
>>
>>> I've been touting the HV20 for quite a while now, and it is really a
>>> true bargain, a joy to travel with, and remarkably capable.
>>
>> We use a HV20 at church, primarily as a 4:3 format camera with video
>> output. We don't use the built-in recorder.
>>
>> The image quality was a fantastic upgrade over its predecessor, but I
>> have two complaints:
>>
>> (1) The green square in the upper right hand corner, which I don't know
>> how to make go away.
>>
>> (2) As a camera, it seems to have a lot of latency.
>>
>>> Also quite surprising to me is the fact that Canon's wide angle (high
>>> def) adapter, made specifically for the HV-20, takes the lens out to a
>>> very respectable field of view but does not compromise sharpness,
>>> chromatic aberration / fringing, or shown vignetting. On a stable tripod
>>> with the wide angle converter, this little camera makes truly excellent
>>> landscape, panorama, and nature shots look as good and often better than
>>> anything I can see here off of commercial BluRay, HD satellite, cable,
>>> etc.
>>
>> Any experience with the tele-adaptor? We use ours mostly to shoot at a
>> pulpit which is about 120 feet away, and the image quality at that
>> distance is reduced in quality (still worlds better than the
>> predecessor), apparently by operation at max zoom.
>>
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|